In the real world no one is exactly alike, and one will always have an advantage over the other. Hence the need for an "equalizer"

Your "equalizer" is in fact an "escalator" which increases the level of danger by introducing a threat of lethal force to many situations where it (mostly) did not exist.

All this self-defence stuff is hogwash. What you are really talking about, if you would only admit it, is the fear of losing control. Guns only give the illusion of control at the same time as increasing the risk that you are going to get killed. You're better off without them.

I'm sure you can imagine all kinds of scenarios where guns save the day. Some of them will be true. However, the harm done by guns vastly outweighs the small amount of good they actually do.

Do you seriously believe that only firearms are capable of lethal force?

How does a gun create an illusion of control? If the firearm is in my hand, I am in control of it, there is no illusion. And how does a firearm increase my risk of being killed? With it I have a chance of defending myself, and a statistically documented chance that when faced with a firearm, the other party will run away.

I don't have to imagine anything. Some of my firearms likely have been used as a tool to kill some person, yes. but that does not make them evil, nor does it make them dangerous. All it makes them are tools, and it is the user who may be dangerous or evil.

Oh, and before you go off on about how I shouldn't own guns that have been used to kill people, I collect WWII and earlier military bolt action rifles. I don't know their history, but I doubt any are unsalted.

NQS_________________These opinions are mine, mine I say! Piss off and get your own.

It's the Smurf mindset. You do everything together, sign while you do your happy Smurf labor, and when anything troubles you, you rely on Papa Smurf to make it better.

Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire. He is "more equal". And, in his mind, what's good for New York City is good for America. (Then again, what's good for New York City isn't good enough for Bloomberg -- see, he's an Inner Party Member).

Reminds me too much of Animal Farm. Meanwhile, mcgruff nauseates me. At least he "knows his place"; if he lost his voice, he might make fine household staff -- a gardner perhaps._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

The threat assessment link that I posted elsewhere is a good read. After reading that consider that all of the US national politicians have security details that understand these things even if they claim to not (the politicians). It is specious for any of them to argue that people that have suffered from known threats should not protect as they do. See all of the derision about armed protection in schools. Good enough for their children but not ours ...

What is most chilling is the realization that pretty much every mass shooting in the US has had perpetrators that fit the description very well. The indicators for the Tuscon shooter were screaming for intervention in this context. He so scared the college that they sent their police to bugger him off. The Colorado one, maybe there was a reason that our President wanted to clarify that doctors could report credible threats of violence without breaking any laws.

Ok. Perhaps the president is subject to higher threat level, but others aren't. Ban their guns too. Happy?

In the real world no one is exactly alike, and one will always have an advantage over the other. Hence the need for an "equalizer"

Your "equalizer" is in fact an "escalator" which increases the level of danger by introducing a threat of lethal force to many situations where it (mostly) did not exist.

All this self-defence stuff is hogwash. What you are really talking about, if you would only admit it, is the fear of losing control. Guns only give the illusion of control at the same time as increasing the risk that you are going to get killed. You're better off without them.

I'm sure you can imagine all kinds of scenarios where guns save the day. Some of them will be true. However, the harm done by guns vastly outweighs the small amount of good they actually do.

Do you seriously believe that only firearms are capable of lethal force?

How does a gun create an illusion of control? If the firearm is in my hand, I am in control of it, there is no illusion. And how does a firearm increase my risk of being killed? With it I have a chance of defending myself, and a statistically documented chance that when faced with a firearm, the other party will run away.

I don't have to imagine anything. Some of my firearms likely have been used as a tool to kill some person, yes. but that does not make them evil, nor does it make them dangerous. All it makes them are tools, and it is the user who may be dangerous or evil.

Oh, and before you go off on about how I shouldn't own guns that have been used to kill people, I collect WWII and earlier military bolt action rifles. I don't know their history, but I doubt any are unsalted.

NQS

his point is that you have an arms race going. You are right that in your country you need a gun because most perps have them. But most perps have them because most householders have them. You have an arms race going and daily people are using these ubiquitous weapons.

Actually, most perps don't have them, and crimes involving firearms are small percentage of the total. The penalties for gun-related crime are so high that most criminals avoid their use: this includes burglars, muggers, car thieves, rapists, etc., etc., right on down the line. Even the people who hold up stores and banks often use realistic-looking fake guns or replicas, so that they'll only go to jail for a few years, and not decades.

The people who have guns are the gang-bangers and drug dealers, and they use them mostly for interaction with other gang-bangers and drug dealers. The statistics don't differentiate between some crip or blood, or some meth or crack dealer, and Joe Citizen, when they tally up shootings. Subtract our inner-city gun violence among blacks and hispanics and see what effect that has on the total. That's why Bloomberg has such a hardon for gun control: because he's an upper class white man from New York City. Forcing that on the rest of the country is wrong, though.

The idea that criminals have guns because their victims have guns is just plain wrong. If they think an intended victim has a gun, they pick a different victim, as would any rational person.

I think you already knew this, so I'm wondering why you blurted this out._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

Actually, most perps don't have them, and crimes involving firearms are small percentage of the total. The penalties for gun-related crime are so high that most criminals avoid their use: this includes burglars, muggers, car thieves, rapists, etc., etc., right on down the line. Even the people who hold up stores and banks often use realistic-looking fake guns or replicas, so that they'll only go to jail for a few years, and not decades.

The people who have guns are the gang-bangers and drug dealers, and they use them mostly for interaction with other gang-bangers and drug dealers. The statistics don't differentiate between some crip or blood, or some meth or crack dealer, and Joe Citizen, when they tally up shootings. Subtract our inner-city gun violence among blacks and hispanics and see what effect that has on the total. That's why Bloomberg has such a hardon for gun control: because he's an upper class white man from New York City. Forcing that on the rest of the country is wrong, though.

The idea that criminals have guns because their victims have guns is just plain wrong. If they think an intended victim has a gun, they pick a different victim, as would any rational person.

I think you already knew this, so I'm wondering why you blurted this out.

Among the robberies for which the UCR Program received weapon information in 2011, strong-arm tactics were used in 42.3 percent, firearms were used in 41.3 percent, and knives and cutting instruments were used in 7.8 percent of robberies. Other dangerous weapons were used in 8.7 percent of robberies in 2011. (Based on Table 19.)

In 2008, police services reported about 32,000 robberies in Canada (Table 1), representing 7% of all violent crimes and 1% of all Criminal Code offences.3 About one-quarter of robberies also involved an additional violation, most commonly a weapon offence (such as possession of a prohibited weapon), assault or uttering threats.

......

There has been a particularly notable decline in robberies committed with a firearm, especially when the longer-term trend is examined. Between 1977 (when this information first became available) and 2002, the rate of firearm-related robbery steadily dropped and has remained relatively stable since. Nevertheless, in 2008, a firearm was used to commit 14% of robberies. Robberies in commercial or institutional locations as well as those in residences involved firearms more often than those that occurred on the street.

.....

Despite the inherently violent nature of robbery, most incidents do not result in physical injury to victims. In 2008, 98% of victims suffered little to no injury. However, 2% of victims required professional medical attention at the scene of the incident or transportation to a medical facility.

Thus, a firearm is 3 times more likely to be used in an american robbery.
Likely then, if I may conjecture wildly, more robberies in the US end with a death. Sad, no? The numbers for injury as the result of robbery is listed for canada, but I couldn't find the US one. Also, if you are right about gang bangers in that that's where the real gun violence is, it must be like Johannesburg in some US cities.

Thus, a firearm is 3 times more likely to be used in an american robbery.

Makes sense. But what is a "robbery"? Seems like a very narrow subset of crime. Do unattended burglaries of homes fall under "robbery"? Do car thefts fall under "robbery"?

More to the point, what the effect on rates of robbery? And why cherry-pick one country? Do you believe that the availability of firearms can be assumed to be the only factor influencing rates of crime? If you do, then explain why rates of violent crime in the U.S. went down when the assault weapons ban was lifted. And, if you don't, then explain why you're ignoring all other variables.

juniper wrote:

Likely then, if I may conjecture wildly, more robberies in the US end with a death.

Where did it say that? I must have missed that.

To properly examine that question, you'd have to broaden your scope to include all countries, and you'd have to look at a wide range of possible factors, to analyze possible cause and effect relationships. The people who have done this have not been able to find a cause and effect relationship between the availability of guns and any important crime statistic.

Furthermore, to really examine the overall question (whether to ban or keep guns), you'd also have to include in your analysis broader questions like the effect on the likelihood of invasion, the safety of citizens during natural disasters or civil unrest, and so on. You'd also have to examine, looking at global history and the billion or more people put to death under authoritarian regimes, whether the value of deterring such authoritarian oppression can be quantified and weighed in the balance, along with these other issues.

You can't just artificially limit your analysis to the side of the question that weighs in favor of your presumption. You can't just artificially limit your analysis to one country, where cultural, economic, and other factors may be salient. You can't just artificially limit your analysis to a single class of crime that tends to necessitate weaponry, particularly if you don't even examine changes in the denominator. These are all called "intellectual dishonesty", and your approach to this issue in general seems rife with it. Instead of continuing, repeatedly, over and fucking over again, to pursue this dishonest approach, why don't you take some time to consider WHY you feel compelled to do so?_________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

Makes sense. But what is a "robbery"? Seems like a very narrow subset of crime. Do unattended burglaries of homes fall under "robbery"? Do car thefts fall under "robbery"?

Robbery, I believe, is defined as theft by force. I don't know if they are tabulated the same in the US and canada. I just picked on thing because I was being fast and Canada and the US are similar. To be honest, it was the first thing I looked at; I didn't comb through a whole bunch of crimes and find the one that best suits my point.

Quote:

More to the point, what the effect on rates of robbery? And why cherry-pick one country? Do you believe that the availability of firearms can be assumed to be the only factor influencing rates of crime? If you do, then explain why rates of violent crime in the U.S. went down when the assault weapons ban was lifted. And, if you don't, then explain why you're ignoring all other variables.

Above. Also, I do have a job, you know. Not on the dole here

Quote:

juniper wrote:

Likely then, if I may conjecture wildly, more robberies in the US end with a death.

Where did it say that? I must have missed that.

you didn't. I said it.

Quote:

To properly examine that question, you'd have to broaden your scope to include all countries, and you'd have to look at a wide range of possible factors, to analyze possible cause and effect relationships. The people who have done this have not been able to find a cause and effect relationship between the availability of guns and any important crime statistic.

Furthermore, to really examine the overall question (whether to ban or keep guns), you'd also have to include in your analysis broader questions like the effect on the likelihood of invasion, the safety of citizens during natural disasters or civil unrest, and so on. You'd also have to examine, looking at global history and the billion or more people put to death under authoritarian regimes, whether the value of deterring such authoritarian oppression can be quantified and weighed in the balance, along with these other issues.

You can't just artificially limit your analysis to the side of the question that weighs in favor of your presumption. You can't just artificially limit your analysis to one country, where cultural, economic, and other factors may be salient. You can't just artificially limit your analysis to a single class of crime that tends to necessitate weaponry, particularly if you don't even examine changes in the denominator. These are all called "intellectual dishonesty", and your approach to this issue in general seems rife with it. Instead of continuing, repeatedly, over and fucking over again, to pursue this dishonest approach, why don't you take some time to consider WHY you feel compelled to do so?

I thought this was an informal forum, not a PhD defense Your points are valid, but not for the scope of this discussion. However, perhaps you can explain the discrepancy. The difference between canada and the US are slight but important (guns and extreme poverty and culture of violence, not untied). in any case, my point was to counter yours; that guns are used A LOT (a lot := much much more than in Canada) in robberies, and you claimed otherwise.

The way I see it, Canada is still under Crown, so technically, you are Serfs. Now you may enjoy your lifestyle as you are thought to believe is superior, but you cannot miss what you don't experience, and hence, arguably, you are not aware of what the americans are trading for the right to bear arms.

It's the feeling I had in Sweden, sure, its very nice, but it felt stuffy and constipated.

The way I see it, Canada is still under Crown, so technically, you are Serfs. Now you may enjoy your lifestyle as you are thought to believe is superior, but you cannot miss what you don't experience, and hence, arguably, you are not aware of what the americans are trading for the right to bear arms.

It's the feeling I had in Sweden, sure, its very nice, but it felt stuffy and constipated.

Just my 2c.

I think if you were in Toronto and a non-crime filled part of chicago, you wouldn't be able to tell if which country you are in.

WELCOME BROTHER LIBERTARIAN!_________________At the heart of the durability of mass schooling is a brilliantly designed power fragmentation system which distributes decision-making so widely among so many different warring interests that large-scale change is impossible to those without a codebook.

Are you really claiming only presidents (or politicians) can be a target?

statistically, yes.

False.

What i meant is that the president is an obvious assassination target. But, I am not against people who feel they are targets from owning a rifle (after suitable checks).

flysideways wrote:

It is specious for any of them to argue that people that have suffered from known threats should not protect as they do. See all of the derision about armed protection in schools. Good enough for their children but not ours ...

What is taxation? Depends where you live exactly but things like: health care, defence spending, roads, bridges, schools, the rule of law, public parks, etc etc

Who needs that shit

There goes mcgruff again with his penchant for violence and aggression. (See also: I CAN HAS STRAWMENZ TOO LOL)_________________At the heart of the durability of mass schooling is a brilliantly designed power fragmentation system which distributes decision-making so widely among so many different warring interests that large-scale change is impossible to those without a codebook.

To properly examine the question, you'd have to broaden your scope to include all countries, and you'd have to look at a wide range of possible factors, to analyze possible cause and effect relationships. The people who have done this have not been able to find a cause and effect relationship between the availability of guns and any important crime statistic.

Furthermore, to really examine the overall question (whether to ban or keep guns), you'd also have to include in your analysis broader questions like the effect on the likelihood of invasion, the potential consequences of inability to mount a resistance if occupied, the safety of citizens during natural disasters or civil unrest, and so on. You'd also have to examine, looking at global history and the billion or more people put to death under authoritarian regimes, whether the value of deterring such authoritarian oppression can be quantified and weighed in the balance, along with these other issues, all of which impact citizen well-being, if not now, than potentially to a very great degree within the span of a lifetime or two (the Europeans who know this are just dying off now, so they'll probably be ready to get ass-raped again any time now). Canada, which has lived under the protection of the U.S. for a hundred years like a child playing in a safely fenced back yard, certainly can't be considered as a representative case.

You can't just artificially limit your analysis to the side of the question that weighs in favor of your presumption. You can't just artificially limit your analysis to one country, where cultural, economic, and other factors may be salient. You can't just artificially limit your analysis to a single class of crime that tends to necessitate weaponry, particularly if you don't even examine changes in the denominator. These are all called "intellectual dishonesty"

You and mcgruff seem to do these things every time you voice an opinion on this subject._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

To properly examine the question, you'd have to broaden your scope to include all countries, and you'd have to look at a wide range of possible factors, to analyze possible cause and effect relationships. The people who have done this have not been able to find a cause and effect relationship between the availability of guns and any important crime statistic.

Furthermore, to really examine the overall question (whether to ban or keep guns), you'd also have to include in your analysis broader questions like the effect on the likelihood of invasion, the potential consequences of inability to mount a resistance if occupied, the safety of citizens during natural disasters or civil unrest, and so on. You'd also have to examine, looking at global history and the billion or more people put to death under authoritarian regimes, whether the value of deterring such authoritarian oppression can be quantified and weighed in the balance, along with these other issues, all of which impact citizen well-being, if not now, than potentially to a very great degree within the span of a lifetime or two (the Europeans who know this are just dying off now, so they'll probably be ready to get ass-raped again any time now). Canada, which has lived under the protection of the U.S. for a hundred years like a child playing in a safely fenced back yard, certainly can't be considered as a representative case.

You can't just artificially limit your analysis to the side of the question that weighs in favor of your presumption. You can't just artificially limit your analysis to one country, where cultural, economic, and other factors may be salient. You can't just artificially limit your analysis to a single class of crime that tends to necessitate weaponry, particularly if you don't even examine changes in the denominator. These are all called "intellectual dishonesty"

You and mcgruff seem to do these things every time you voice an opinion on this subject.

what? Not go do my own independent study on guns? sorry, but stats are hard to collect. Forgive me.

Do you seriously believe that only firearms are capable of lethal force?

Do I have to?

NotQuiteSane wrote:

How does a gun create an illusion of control? If the firearm is in my hand, I am in control of it, there is no illusion. And how does a firearm increase my risk of being killed? With it I have a chance of defending myself, and a statistically documented chance that when faced with a firearm, the other party will run away.

People think if they have a gun they will be able to control a violent situation whereas, in fact, all they've really done is escalate whatever violent situations they will encounter to include a real possibility of lethal force. The widespread availability of guns creates a kind of arms race for stupid people, as Juniper was too polite to mention. It's much better for everyone if guns are taken out of the equation.

Violent, angry or fearful people should not set the terms of our peaceful lives.